Supporter: Kyotos greatest value is symbolic
The Kyoto treaty finally takes effect
today and one of its major supporters openly admits the treatys
greatest value is symbolic.
That quote, from todays Washington Post article
by Shankar Vendantam, was a rare hint of honesty in the global
warming debate. The full quote came from Eileen Claussen, president
of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The greatest value is
symbolic.
The typically one-sided piece from the Post
buried the impact signing the treaty would have on the United
States. The comment about the treaty being symbolic came in the
fourth paragraph. The cost came 17 paragraphs later. According to
James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, it would be 5 million jobs and $400 billion
annually.
Vendantam was quick to criticize the Bush
administration for their stony opposition to the treaty. Even
more, he continued the fantasy about the treaty that the United
States helped shape it. President Bush pulled the United States out
as soon as he took office. In reality, while President Bill Clinton
was involved in creating Kyoto, the U.S. Senate, which must approve
treaties, was strongly against it. On July 25, 1997, the Senate
voted unanimously 95-0 against Kyoto. That vote included Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
The Post article took one unusual tactic and
referred to groups on both sides of the debate as advocacy
organizations. Had that been it, the result would have been fair if
insufficient. Unfortunately, Vendantam cited the background of Kyoto
opponents without doing the same for its advocates. Frank Maisano
was called an energy lobbyist and former spokesman for a defunct
industry coalition on climate change. William OKeefe was referred
to as a former oil industry executive who now works at the Marshall
Institute, an advocacy organization.
But when the story turned to proponents of Kyoto like
Annie Petsonk, she was labeled international counsel at
Environmental Defense, an advocacy organization. It didnt mention
that the staff spotlight from her own organization highlights her
work on the Kyoto treaty itself. One of her coworkers even calls her
a warrior for change.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change was given even
more of a kid-glove treatment and called simply an independent
research and advocacy organization that works with many large
companies interested in addressing the risks of global warming. But
Pew is anything but an independent. In fact its enormously in the
pro-Kyoto camp and not only accepts global warming as a fact (as
does the Post), but blames mankind for it. According to the
Pew website, This warming is largely the result of emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities
Just as deceptive was their failure to mention that
Claussen, the Pew Center president, had been a Special Assistant to
President Bill Clinton and then appointed by him as the Assistant
Secretary for Oceans, Environment, and International Scientific
Affairs for the State Department.
One of the most predictable pieces of the Vendantam
story was how he treated the temperature change. According to the
story, Global temperatures are indisputably rising and, while
there are persistent skeptics, the vast majority of scientists say
human activity is to blame.
Not only is the temperature increase still called into
question by scientists, but another part of the foundation on which
climate advocates build their beliefs, might be coming down as well.
On February 14, the Wall Street Journal did a front-page
article highlighting challenges to historic temperature readings
used by the environmental movement. One graph, nicknamed the hockey
stick because of its shape, has been used for years to claim that
temperatures rose suddenly in the 20th century.
An amateur analyzed some of the data and concluded that
not only were there flaws, but that the statistical technique tended
to draw hockey-stick forms. Even its creator, Dr. Michael Mann from
the University of Virginia, admitted this according to the
Journal. Hes also corrected the other problems, but claims they
didnt impact the overall result.
The problems dont end there. Mann wont release all of
the data, so no one can double check his entire effort. Other
scientists point that the technique could sharply underestimate
past temperature swings. The graph already de-emphasized a warming
period around the year 1000 and the little ice age in the 15th
century.
The Journal continued its strong coverage of
Kyoto with a piece February 15 that discussed the economic hardships
for industrial nations that had agreed to the pact. Canada, in
particular, is facing hardships and has already spent $3.7 billion
encouraging voluntary cuts. But according to the Journal: By most
informed estimates, however, the plan has yielded only about half
the hoped for emissions cuts. Despite all this, Canadian emissions
are actually rising and could force extreme cuts by 2012.
To find out more about the current climate debate, check out these two stories:
As well as the Senate vote against the treaty: